5 ms·

I was thinking, "Why not just garnish his salary?" until I read this: When parents fall short, the authorities escalate collection efforts, withholding up to 6

I was thinking, "Why not just garnish his salary?" until I read this: When parents fall short, the authorities escalate collection efforts, withholding up to 65 percent of a paycheck, seizing bank deposits and tax refunds, suspending driver’s licenses and professional licenses, and then imposing jail time. I don't see how this is legal. If they've seized 65% of your paycheck already and it's still not enough, isn't this basically amounting to debtors' prison?

spdustin 12y ago
Because when it comes to child support, you've been ordered by a judge to pay. Violating a court order is a criminal offense. There are other ways to manage overburdening debt collections, even court-ordered ones. The situation escalating to incarceration is largely avoidable.
- geebee 12y ago
  This is interesting. Could you explain how it is avoidable? I am genuinely asking, not looking for something to argue about (I may disagree, just want to make sure you know I'm not looking for something to disagree with, I am asking this because I really don't know). My limited understanding is that people can be sent to jail for failure to pay even if they have turned over all existing assets (i.e., no concealing assets or fraud) and have made no effort to evade payment. For instance, if someone "loses" a job and the judge believes that the person is not making a sufficient effort to find one and resume payment, that can be sufficient to send someone to jail. Is that the case?
  - Canada 12y ago
    My understanding is that effort is irrelevant. Either the man pays or is imprisoned. I wonder how much of these debts not money paid by the state to the monther, but are fines or penalties that generate revenue for the state itself.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  > Because when it comes to child support, you've been ordered by a judge to pay. Violating a court order is a criminal offense. Explaining the legal mean doesn't preclude the above person's point that the entire system essentially amounts to debtors prison. > The situation escalating to incarceration is largely avoidable. If the person literally cannot afford to pay, how is it avoidable? I assume if the person had assets, the court would have already seized them.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I don't see how this is legal. If they've seized 65% of your paycheck already and it's still not enough, isn't this basically amounting to debtors' prison? In theory, the order is based on findings which include proven resources in terms of income, assets, etc. If there is an error or change that justifies changes to the order, there are, in principal, mechanisms available to get the order revised. Until it is revised, the presumption that if garnishments/seizures are not sufficient, the income or assets (which were found to suffice to support the amout of the order originally) have been shifted in such a way as to make them outside of the scope of garnishments/seizures, not that they have declined to the point to warrant a change to the order. The collections process and the process for adjusting the order based on changed circumstances are decoupled by design. Now, if the mechanisms for adjusting orders are slow, inaccessible, ineffective, etc. -- as, from what I understand, they often are -- there is still a very real problem. But the problem is with those mechanisms, not with the fact that the part of the system designed to do enforcement just does enforcement.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Some jurisdictions calculate based on what you should be able to make according to the judge who is likely not well informed of the market. Also to note, putting a child's father in jail where they can neither see nor support the child is not in the best interest of the child, yet that is their war cry every time you question their reasoning. Debtor prisons need to go.

spdustin 12y ago

Because when it comes to child support, you've been ordered by a judge to pay. Violating a court order is a criminal offense. There are other ways to manage overburdening debt collections, even court-ordered ones. The situation escalating to incarceration is largely avoidable.

geebee 12y ago
This is interesting. Could you explain how it is avoidable? I am genuinely asking, not looking for something to argue about (I may disagree, just want to make sure you know I'm not looking for something to disagree with, I am asking this because I really don't know). My limited understanding is that people can be sent to jail for failure to pay even if they have turned over all existing assets (i.e., no concealing assets or fraud) and have made no effort to evade payment. For instance, if someone "loses" a job and the judge believes that the person is not making a sufficient effort to find one and resume payment, that can be sufficient to send someone to jail. Is that the case?
- Canada 12y ago
  My understanding is that effort is irrelevant. Either the man pays or is imprisoned. I wonder how much of these debts not money paid by the state to the monther, but are fines or penalties that generate revenue for the state itself.
Someone1234 12y ago
> Because when it comes to child support, you've been ordered by a judge to pay. Violating a court order is a criminal offense. Explaining the legal mean doesn't preclude the above person's point that the entire system essentially amounts to debtors prison. > The situation escalating to incarceration is largely avoidable. If the person literally cannot afford to pay, how is it avoidable? I assume if the person had assets, the court would have already seized them.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I don't see how this is legal. If they've seized 65% of your paycheck already and it's still not enough, isn't this basically amounting to debtors' prison? In theory, the order is based on findings which include proven resources in terms of income, assets, etc. If there is an error or change that justifies changes to the order, there are, in principal, mechanisms available to get the order revised. Until it is revised, the presumption that if garnishments/seizures are not sufficient, the income or assets (which were found to suffice to support the amout of the order originally) have been shifted in such a way as to make them outside of the scope of garnishments/seizures, not that they have declined to the point to warrant a change to the order. The collections process and the process for adjusting the order based on changed circumstances are decoupled by design. Now, if the mechanisms for adjusting orders are slow, inaccessible, ineffective, etc. -- as, from what I understand, they often are -- there is still a very real problem. But the problem is with those mechanisms, not with the fact that the part of the system designed to do enforcement just does enforcement.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Some jurisdictions calculate based on what you should be able to make according to the judge who is likely not well informed of the market. Also to note, putting a child's father in jail where they can neither see nor support the child is not in the best interest of the child, yet that is their war cry every time you question their reasoning. Debtor prisons need to go.